Meta

More No-bama

I think I’ve mentioned this controversy before, though I can’t seem to find the correct post – and finding it isn’t that important anway. What IS important is the new information unearthed that pertains to it.

For the unaware, Senator Obama voted against a bill in the Illinois legislature that would protect infants born alive during abortion attempts (yes, thisdoeshappen). Since then, he has assured the concerned public that the reason he voted against it was that the language wasn’t sufficient to protect Roe v. Wade. On the face of it, that excuse doesn’t make sense – a bill requiring care for babies post-abortion shouldn’t have any effects pre-abortion. However, since I haven’t read the text of the bill, I figured I could have been mistaken.

Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama’s entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the “neutrality clause” (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

What one can logically conclude from this is that Obama is so pro-abortion that even when he specifically includes Roe-protectionary language, he can’t bring himself to support a live child after the abortion is done. There is no way around the fact that Obama supported infanticide, presumably to keep his NARAL and Planned Parenthood supporters.

Hey…are you listening? It’s just fine with Obama if a child born during an abortion is just left to die.